4 ms·

Enrollment by young Americans, both boys and girls, is dropping in all fields of engineering. The nation doesn't need that many hedge fund managers does it?

by apstuff 18y ago

aggieben 18y ago
I'm not so sure a simple drop in enrollment is such a bad thing. I recently taught a couple of graduate level courses in a nearby CS department, and I can tell you that they should "un-enroll" about half of their graduate students, and it would vastly improve the quality of the department almost overnight. (I can only speak to the graduate program - I haven't been in much contact with undergrads). The U.S. will never graduate as many "engineers" as China and India, and we shouldn't try. We should graduate the best engineers and scientists.
- nostrademons 18y ago
  Chances are, "un-enrolling" about half the graduate students would improve a department no matter how big it is. Sturgeon's Law - "90% of everything is crap". But if you have a bigger pool to draw from, the 10% that's not crap will amount to more engineers. And the 0.01% that's really spectacular will be more spectacular. That's the way a bell-curve works - if you raise the area under the curve, the tips spread out as well. There're a lot of smart people in finance whose talents are being wasted making sure that the market reflects all information within microseconds instead of within minutes. If the economic incentives were such that they started companies or did basic research instead, I bet you'd see quite a few more breakthroughs.
  - aggieben 18y ago
    I can't say I agree. We have increased our pool by accepting sub-par students, and it seems to be shifting the entire curve backwards, rather than "spreading the tips". I don't know what the right answer is (or if there is one); what feels right is to raise the standards of admission.
  - cdr 18y ago
    Un-enrolling the /bottom/ 50% would probably improve a department, sure. But how do you get that bottom 50% without enrolling all of those students in the first place? Your second point assumes that the relative percentage of "not crap" remains constant as enrollment increases, which is highly dubious. And there's a lot of smart people being wasted at Google and Microsoft, too.
- mamama 18y ago
  Thank you. You've restored my faith in academia. You're doing God's work.

Enrollment by young Americans, both boys and girls, is dropping in all fields of engineering. The nation doesn't need that many hedge fund managers does it?

by apstuff 18y ago

Enrollment by young Americans, both boys and girls, is dropping in all fields of engineering. The nation doesn't need that many hedge fund managers does it?

aggieben 18y ago

I'm not so sure a simple drop in enrollment is such a bad thing. I recently taught a couple of graduate level courses in a nearby CS department, and I can tell you that they should "un-enroll" about half of their graduate students, and it would vastly improve the quality of the department almost overnight. (I can only speak to the graduate program - I haven't been in much contact with undergrads). The U.S. will never graduate as many "engineers" as China and India, and we shouldn't try. We should graduate the best engineers and scientists.

nostrademons 18y ago
Chances are, "un-enrolling" about half the graduate students would improve a department no matter how big it is. Sturgeon's Law - "90% of everything is crap". But if you have a bigger pool to draw from, the 10% that's not crap will amount to more engineers. And the 0.01% that's really spectacular will be more spectacular. That's the way a bell-curve works - if you raise the area under the curve, the tips spread out as well. There're a lot of smart people in finance whose talents are being wasted making sure that the market reflects all information within microseconds instead of within minutes. If the economic incentives were such that they started companies or did basic research instead, I bet you'd see quite a few more breakthroughs.
- aggieben 18y ago
  I can't say I agree. We have increased our pool by accepting sub-par students, and it seems to be shifting the entire curve backwards, rather than "spreading the tips". I don't know what the right answer is (or if there is one); what feels right is to raise the standards of admission.
- cdr 18y ago
  Un-enrolling the /bottom/ 50% would probably improve a department, sure. But how do you get that bottom 50% without enrolling all of those students in the first place? Your second point assumes that the relative percentage of "not crap" remains constant as enrollment increases, which is highly dubious. And there's a lot of smart people being wasted at Google and Microsoft, too.
mamama 18y ago
Thank you. You've restored my faith in academia. You're doing God's work.